6.  The applicants were born in 1992 and 1996 respectively and live in Belgrade.
7.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
8.  On 28 December 2000 the Third Municipal Court (Treći opštinski sud) in Belgrade dissolved the marriage between the applicants' parents and ordered their father (hereinafter “the defendant”) to pay each of them 25% of his monthly income in child maintenance.
9.  On 27 June 2001 this judgment became final.
10.  On 2 April 2003 the applicants' mother filed a criminal complaint against the defendant, alleging his failure to pay the child maintenance awarded.
11.  On 13 May 2003 the Third Municipal Public Prosecutor's Office requested the opening of the investigation.
12. On 29 May 2003, in the course of the preliminary proceedings before the Third Municipal Court, the applicants' mother, acting on behalf of the applicants, sought payment of the child maintenance accrued on the bases of the judgment adopted on 28 December 2000 (i.e. submitted a “civil-party complaint”; “podnela predlog za ostvarivanje imovinsko-pravnog zahteva”).
13.  On 14 July 2003 the Third Municipal Public Prosecutor's Office formally indicted the defendant in this respect.
14.  The first hearing scheduled for 9 December 2003 was adjourned.
15.  Between March 2004 and April 2005 two hearings were held whilst another three hearings were adjourned on various procedural grounds.
16.  On 25 April 2005 the Third Municipal Court decided to consider the applicants' civil complaint on the merits and requested an expert opinion in respect of the amount of accrued maintenance between January 2001 and June 2005.
17. The expert produced his report on 7 July 2005.
18.  Between August 2005 and October 2006, four hearings were adjourned either because of the failure of the defendant's lawyer to appear before the court or the court's failure to summon him properly.
19.  In view of a possibility of settling the problem with the defendant, the applicants' legal representative requested the court to grant a short adjournment of the hearing of 22 November 2006. The court rescheduled the hearing for 8 December 2006.
20. Between December 2006 and October 2007, another two hearings were held whilst three hearings were adjourned on procedural grounds, one of them because of the presiding judge's “other commitments” (zbog sprečenosti).
21. In a letter of 11 September 2007, addressed to the President of the Third Municipal Court, the applicants alleged that the presiding judge had herself indicated that she “did not know what to do with the case” and would gladly be replaced by another judge.
22.  On 22 November 2007 the Third Municipal Court requested an updated version of the expert's opinion.
23.  The expert submitted his report on 8 January 2008.
24.  The court served this report on the parties at the hearing of 8 February 2008, which was adjourned to allow them to submit their written comments.
25. The hearing scheduled for 6 March 2008 was adjourned because the prosecutor and the applicants' representative had failed to appear, and re-scheduled for 1 April 2008.
26.  Given the defendant's failure to appear in court, the court adjourned the hearing of 1 April 2008 and scheduled the next hearing for 9 July 2008. This hearing would appear to have been also adjourned.
27.  On 8 October 2008 the Third Municipal Court found the defendant guilty of failing to pay child maintenance and sentenced him to three months' in prison, suspended for one year. The court further advised the applicants, under Article 206 of the Criminal Proceedings Act (see paragraph 35 below), to pursue the compensation claims which they had made in the course of the criminal proceedings by means of a separate civil action before the civil courts. It was noted that the data collected in the course of the criminal proceedings were not sufficient to determine the matter in the criminal context.
28.  It would appear that this judgment was not served on the applicants' representative.
29. On 12 February 2009 the District Court (Okružni sud) in Belgrade quashed the Third Municipal Court's judgment and remitted the case for re- consideration.
30.  The Third Municipal Court subsequently adjourned the hearing scheduled for 22 June 2009 in view of the defendant's failure to appear in court.
31.  On 16 July 2009 the Third Municipal Court discontinued the proceedings because the prosecution had become time-barred. It further advised the applicants that they could pursue their claim for damages in a separate civil suit. No appeal having been submitted, this decision became final on 9 October 2009.